I am wary of adjectives.  As an English and history teacher, I have seen them bloat sentences and essays.  And, while they are generally employed for descriptive purposes, I can testify that the rampant and imprecise application of adjectives in student writing can often obfuscate instead of clarify.  It is with apprehension, then, that I venture into this territory and make the claim that Amanda Rabe is a unique talent. 

Some students impress me with their diligence and consistency while others floor me with sporadic blasts of brilliance.  Some, while lacking in classroom attributes, awe me with their abilities on the court or field.  Others are plain likable; their personalities come to the fore and carry them towards their goals.  It is extremely rare for me, working in a small school in a small city, to find all of these attributes in a single person.  Amanda exemplifies each of these outstanding traits.

Earlier this year I gave an in-class analytic writing assignment during English.  Using a one-page excerpt from Charles Dickens’ Hard Times, I asked the students to analyze how the scene (a description of how a female character doesn’t decorate her home) spoke to larger themes of the novel, which looks at successful businessmen in the early stages of Britain’s Industrial Revolution.  To them, facts and bottom lines are all that matter.  Objects of fancy or the imagination simply don’t count; time spent dwelling on them is time wasted.  Those who aren’t fortunate enough to run this machine become the raw material ground up in it.  After giving the class 25 minutes to write, I asked for voluntary responses to the question.  Much of what the students produced was expected: brief summaries, mostly unrelated to the specific passage, which only tenuously connected to a broader theme. I gave the students my take, already thought out closely, and expected us to move on.  Amanda’s hand shot up in disagreement.  She then produced the following argument: the major theme of the excerpt (she claimed) was the interconnectedness of form and function.  The model for success in the novel was maximum efficiency; form without functional utility was merely frivolous. 

        The excerpt describes how the young wife Louisa doesn’t adorn her tycoon husband’s home with any decorations.  Amanda argued that this fit the business tycoon’s (Josiah Bounderby) practical take on the world.  Even though he had the means to decorate lavishly, he would be operating against his own principles if he indulged in the temptation to fill his home with useless knick-knacks.  The problem, Amanda argued, was that the bourgeois wife, recently freed by her wealth (by servants, nannies, etc.) of basic domestic duties, now had the responsibility to make her home beautiful.  Louisa was at a generational crossroads: her function as a bourgeois wife was to be pretty and adorn the house, but her husband was too consumed by work to notice her charms and too dismissive of empty form to allow her to decorate.  Amanda said that this particular situation echoed Dickens’ general critique of early industrial society—a singular focus on efficiency left many individuals stuck in irresolvable contradictions.

Amanda brings this kind of sophisticated approach to all classroom activities.  She argues cogently and supports her assertions with specific evidence both in seminars and on paper.  Academically, I haven’t found her ceiling.  Not limited to classroom excellence, Amanda participates in varsity volleyball, basketball and track.  She readies herself for those activities by working diligently each day in my physical conditioning class, where she stands out for her tenacity as a worker and peer leader.  Socially, Amanda’s peers are often buoyed by her compassionate listening skills and articulate responses.  I have met few young adults who possess the breadth or depth of Amanda’s many skills.  She is of rare substance; I can’t think of another student more deserving of a scholarship.

Sincerely,

Mark Bixby

Sr. Class Dean/Instructor - Desert Academy

                                                                      4/15/08

Letter from National Center for Genome Resources